Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Deterministic Equations for Feedback Control of Open Quantum Systems III: Full counting statistics for jump-based feedback

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Jump-based feedback with memory can be rewritten exactly as a Lindblad master equation in an enlarged classical–quantum space, making its full counting statistics computable.

desk verdict Result 2 gives a clean FCS handle on jump-based feedback; the maser application is undermined by an unproven classical-model equivalence. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.11078 v2 pith:VSSXOOYG submitted 2025-12-11 quant-ph

Alberto J. B. Rosal , Guilherme Fiusa , Patrick P. Potts , Gabriel T. Landi This is my paper
classification quant-ph PACS 03.65.Yz05.40.-a42.50.Lc
keywords quantumjumpsfeedbackcontrolfullcountingstatisticshybridclassical-quantumdynamicsLindbladmasterequationthree-levelmaserstochasticworknon-Markovian
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that feedback protocols which act on the last detected quantum jump—storing that jump in a classical memory and letting it control the Hamiltonian or jump operators—do not need bespoke non-Markovian tools. Its first result is that the joint system–memory state obeys an ordinary Markovian Lindblad equation on a hybrid classical-quantum Hilbert space. Its second result is that, with the natural choice of extended weights, the extended stochastic charge equals the original counting observable, so standard full-counting-statistics formulas give the average current, noise, correlations, and power spectrum under feedback. The authors demonstrate the framework on a three-level maser, where jump-based feedback selects engine cycles and produces positive work even when the unmonitored machine would refrigerate. A sympathetic reader should take the paper as providing a bridge between feedback control and full counting statistics, with analytical handles on thermodynamic quantities that previously required trajectory-by-trajectory treatment.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the hybrid classical-quantum state ρ_sm(t)=Σ_k ϱ_t(k)⊗|k⟩⟨k|, with the classical register |k⟩⟨k| encoding the last detected jump and ϱ_t(k) the memory-resolved, unnormalized system state. The extended jump operators L_{k,q}=L_k(q)⊗|k⟩⟨q| simultaneously implement the quantum jump in channel k and the memory update q→k; this is what converts a non-Markovian feedback dynamics into a Markovian Lindblad equation and makes the counting statistics of the physical jumps identical to those of the extended Markov process.

What would settle it

Construct a jump-monitored protocol in which the no-jump instrument M_0(k) is not of the Lindblad no-jump form—for example, it contains a measurement-induced backaction or depends on the time since the last jump—and compare the exact two-time counting statistics from a trajectory simulation with the predictions of Eq. (27); any disagreement beyond O(δt²) falsifies the claimed equivalence. A simpler target: a protocol where the jump operators depend on the total number of previous jumps of the same channel, not just the last channel, and show the extended Lindblad equation fails to reproduce th

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Result (1) and Result (2). For a feedback protocol in which the last detected jump channel k is stored and controls both the Hamiltonian H(k) and the jump operators L_q(k), the memory-resolved states ϱ_t(k) evolve via Eq. (9); the authors prove that the bipartite density matrix ρ_sm(t)=Σ_k ϱ_t(k)⊗|k⟩⟨k| satisfies the Markovian Lindblad equation (27) with H=Σ_k H(k)⊗|k⟩⟨k| and L_{k,q}=L_k(q)⊗|k⟩⟨q|. Because there is a one-to-one map between jumps in the original system and jumps in the extended space, the extended stochastic charge with weights ν̃_kq=ν_k is exactly the physical stochastic charge N(t)=Σ_k ν_k N_k(t). Hence all full-counting-statistics machinery—current, no

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes that every feedback action can be written in the instrument form M_0(k)=1+δt L_0(k) and M_q(k)=δt J_q(k), with a memory-dependent Lindblad generator; if a protocol uses generalized measurements, delayed responses, or non-Markovian bath memory, the central equivalence embodied in Eq. (9) and Result (1) breaks down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any counting observable of a jump-based feedback protocol—average current, noise, two-point correlations, power spectrum—can be obtained from the extended Lindblad generator using standard full-counting-statistics formulas.
  • Feedback protocols with last-jump memory are Markovianizable: the memory acts as a finite classical register, so no trajectory ensemble simulation is needed for steady-state statistics.
  • In the three-level maser, the protocol yields always-positive steady-state power, meaning jump information is converted into work even when the unmonitored machine would refrigerate; the same formulas give the fluctuations of that power.
  • The framework supplies closed analytical expressions for feedback steady states, populations, and currents, enabling quantitative design of feedback thermal machines.
  • In the examined regime, feedback reduces the noise of the stochastic work because suppressing refrigeration cycles reduces the number of possible jump trajectories.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The causal-memory update construction in the appendix is not restricted to the last jump; the same hybrid embedding should extend, for example, to protocols that also depend on the time elapsed since the last jump, at the price of a larger classical register—a direction the paper leaves open.
  • Because the extended process is a genuine Markovian Lindblad dynamics, the framework is a natural setting for deriving feedback-modified fluctuation theorems or thermodynamic uncertainty relations in the extended space; the paper itself does not state these.
  • A possible testable extension is to apply the same generator-based formulas to feedback that modifies jump operators rather than only Hamiltonians, such as voltage-gated energy-gap control in quantum dots, and compare predicted current noise with photon-counting experiments.
  • The exact coincidence of extended and physical counting statistics suggests that any protocol whose instruments are of the no-jump/jump Lindblad form can be assigned a Markovian price equal to the dimension of the memory space, which could guide experimental design.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper considers a general feedback protocol for open quantum systems in which the last detected quantum-jump channel is stored in a memory and subsequently used to condition the system Hamiltonian and/or jump operators. The first main result is that the memory-resolved master equation (Eq. (9)) can be rewritten as a Lindblad master equation (Eq. (27)) for a hybrid classical-quantum state that includes the memory as a classical degree of freedom. The second main result is that, with a suitable choice of counting weights, the extended stochastic charge of the hybrid system coincides with the system's stochastic charge, so that standard full-counting-statistics tools can be applied to jump-based feedback protocols. The framework is applied to a three-level maser coupled to two thermal baths, where a feedback protocol that turns on the drive only after a |2>->|1> emission is shown to suppress refrigeration cycles and yield positive work output, and the authors compute the corresponding power, noise, and power spectrum.

Significance. If correct, this is a useful formal development: it gives a Markovian embedding of a class of non-Markovian feedback protocols and extends full counting statistics to that class. The appendices contain a self-contained derivation of Eq. (9) and of Result (1), and Result (2) follows by construction. The application to a three-level maser is physically interesting and demonstrates the utility of the formalism. The central formal results appear sound; the principal uncertainty lies in the application section's use of a classical reference model.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IV B 1, Eqs. (46)-(47); Sec. IV C 1; Figs. 3-5] The classical reference model is asserted to reproduce the populations of the coherently driven quantum maser for arbitrary drive strength. The replacement of a coherent drive by the incoherent rate gamma_c = 2 lambda^2 Gamma/(Delta^2+Gamma^2) is a secular/adiabatic-elimination procedure; the time-dependent statement that both rho_t and sigma_t have the same populations is not generally true, because coherent transients (Rabi oscillations) are not captured by the diagonal rate equation. If the intended claim is only the stationary populations, this should be stated explicitly and justified, either by a derivation or by a precise citation to the relevant proof in Ref. [44]. The application's quantitative comparison of classical and quantum feedback curves relies on this equivalence, so this missing support is load-bearing for the application, although it does not affect the central formal
  2. [Sec. III C, Eqs. (39)-(41)] The two-time correlation function, the noise, and the power spectrum are quoted as standard FCS results without derivation. This is acceptable for specialist readers, but the relation between the extended superoperators tilde J and tilde H and the textbook formulas should be made explicit, in particular the treatment of the delta(tau) term in Eq. (39) and the ordering of the superoperators in the time-ordered correlation. A short derivation or a more precise reference would remove ambiguity.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (31)] "It proofs our second main result" should read "It proves our second main result."
  2. [Sec. IV B 1] The phrase "this classical system is such that both states rho_t and sigma_t have the same populations" should be qualified as "in the steady state" or replaced by a statement about the stationary populations, to avoid the false time-dependent reading.
  3. [Sec. IV B 1, Eq. (47)] Gamma is called the "net decoherence rate." It would be helpful to state explicitly that this is the dephasing rate of the 0-1 coherence and to explain why emission channels from |2> do not contribute to it; this connects directly to the validity of the classical reference model.
  4. [Fig. 3(a)] The inset in Fig. 3(a) is mentioned in the text but is not labeled in the figure; please add a label for clarity.
  5. [General] The notation \bar n is used both for the Bose-Einstein distributions \bar n_l, \bar n_r and for the sum \bar n = \bar n_l + \bar n_r in Appendix C. Please introduce a distinct symbol for the sum.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Results (1) and (2) are exact algebraic reductions of the stated jump-feedback model; the FCS and maser results are analytic, not fitted, and self-citations are prerequisites, not circular supports.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Eq. (9) is the input model; Appendix A obtains it from the causal-memory update (A3) (due to Ref. [12]) and the jump instruments (A4)-(A5), which are stated modeling assumptions rather than consequences of the paper's own results. Appendix B derives the extended Lindblad equation (27) by differentiating Eq. (24) and substituting Eq. (9); this is direct algebra with no use of the conclusions. Result 2 is an explicit, transparent identity: with weights ν̃_{kq}=ν_k, Eq. (31) follows from the one-to-one mapping between extended jumps (k,q) and system jumps k. The paper does not fit any parameter to data and then rename it a prediction; the FCS quantities (35), (39)-(41) are standard functionals of the derived extended Markov generator, and Appendix C gives closed-form analytic populations and powers. The self-citations [12,14] are prerequisites — they supply the base feedback master equation and hybrid representation — but they do not presuppose full counting statistics or the maser application, so they are not circular in the sense of this review. The main caveat is correctness/validity rather than circularity: Sec. IV B1 and IV C1 assert that the classical reference model (46) yields the same populations as the coherently driven quantum maser, and Appendix A relies on Eq. (A3) from Ref. [12] without reproving it; these are omissions of support, not cases where the output reduces to the input by construction. The instrument-form assumption in Eqs. (A4)-(A5) is likewise an explicit scope limitation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new fundamental entities. Its auxiliary classical memory space is inherited from the authors' prior hybrid representation (Ref. [14]); the extended stochastic charge Ñ(t) is a derived counting process, not a new physical object. No new free parameters are introduced: the application uses physical parameters (couplings, temperatures, drive strength) as inputs and derives γ_c from them.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math The Lindblad master equation (2) can be unravelled into no-jump and jump Kraus operators (Eq. (3)) forming a valid measurement scheme.
    Invoked in Sec. II A to define quantum jump channels and in Appendix A for the instruments (A4)-(A5). Standard for Markovian open quantum systems.
  • domain assumption Feedback is fully captured by memory-dependent Hamiltonian H(k) and jump operators L_q(k); the instruments M_0(k) and M_q(k) are of the quantum-jump unraveling form (A4)-(A5).
    Defines the protocol class. Generalized measurements, time delays, or other back-action would invalidate Eq. (9) and Result (1).
  • domain assumption The jump memory obeys the update rule k_n = x_n + k_{n-1} δ_{x_n,0} (Eq. A6), storing only the last detected jump.
    Underlies the memory-resolved state and the derivation in Appendix A; the framework applies to this memory structure only.
  • domain assumption The classical reference model (Eq. (46)) with rate γ_c = 2λ²Γ/(Δ²+Γ²) (Eq. (47)) reproduces the quantum maser's populations and current under feedback for the plotted parameter range.
    Asserted in Sec. IV C 1 without proof; the rate follows from a weak-drive adiabatic elimination, yet the figures claim agreement at all γ/λ.
  • standard math The standard FCS relations for Markov jump processes, including the two-point correlation formula (39) and noise formula (41), apply to the extended Lindblad generator (27).
    Quoted in Sec. III C from Ref. [1]; standard but not re-derived here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deterministic Equations for Feedback Control of Open Quantum Systems III: Full counting statistics for jump-based feedback." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VSSXOOYG

@misc{pith2026251211078,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deterministic Equations for Feedback Control of Open Quantum Systems III: Full counting statistics for jump-based feedback},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VSSXOOYG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.11078}
}
read the original abstract

In this work, we consider a general feedback protocol based on quantum-jump detections, where the last detected jump channel is stored in a memory and subsequently used to implement a feedback action, such as modifying the system Hamiltonian conditioned on the last jump. We show that the time evolution of this general protocol can be described by a Lindblad master equation defined in a hybrid classical-quantum space, where the classical part encodes the stored measurement record (memory) and the quantum part represents the monitored system. Moreover, we show that this new representation can be used to fully characterize the counting statistics of a system subject to a general jump-based feedback protocol. We apply the formalism to a three-level system coupled to two thermal baths operating as a thermal machine, and we show that jump-based feedback can be used to convert the information obtained from the jump detections into work. Our framework provides analytical tools that enable the characterization of key statistical properties of any counting observable under jump-based feedback, such as the average current, noise, correlation functions, and power spectrum.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.11078 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Population of the qubit’s ground state in the stationary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Three-level maser without feedback. The external [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Selecting only engine cycles in a three-level maser by ap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Enhancing the power of the three-level maser for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Deterministic Equations for Feedback Control of Open Quantum Systems

    quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A general deterministic feedback master equation is derived, unifying existing schemes and enabling time-dependent feedback based on the last quantum jump and the time since it occurred.

  2. Quantum jump trajectories, hybrid systems, non-Hermitian evolutions, quantum/classical walks

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    A general jump-type stochastic master equation framework unifies non-Hermitian dynamics, random quantum channels, and continuous-time quantum walks via typical trajectories and exclusive jump probabilities.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [44]

    Fiusa, P

    G. Fiusa, P. E. Harunari, A. S. Hegde, and G. T. Landi, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.05160 (2025), cond-mat.stat-mech

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    The fluctuations around the expected value⟨N(t)⟩of the chargeN(t)are captured by the variance Var(N(t))

    and show how they can be used in the context of a gen- eral jump-based feedback protocol. The fluctuations around the expected value⟨N(t)⟩of the chargeN(t)are captured by the variance Var(N(t)). On the other hand, the rates of the variance and expected value also provide important informa- tion about the stochastic charge. We define the average current an...

  3. [2]

    Dynamics Assuming the maser is weakly coupled to the two baths, its evolution (without feedback) is governed by the master equa- tion ∂tρt =−i[H, ρt] + X k∈{El,Il,Er,Ir} D[Lk]ρt ,(42) whereρ t is the state of the three-level system. The jump op- erators of the left bath are given by LEl = p γl(¯nl + 1)|0⟩ ⟨2|, LIl = √γl ¯nl |2⟩ ⟨0|,(43) and for the right ...

  4. [3]

    By appropriately choosing the weightsν k in Eq

    FCS of the three-level maser without feedback The thermodynamic properties of the three-level maser have recently attracted considerable attention, both theoret- ically and experimentally, since it can operate as either an engine or a refrigerator [45], exhibit violations of thermody- namic uncertainty relations [44], and serve as a limiting case of a thr...

  5. [4]

    Dynamics Let us consider the continuous monitoring of quantum jumps in the three-level maser. The detection outcomex t at timetcan take five possible values: (i)x t = 0for a no-jump detection, (ii)x t =E α for an emission, and (iii)x t =I α for an injection, withα=l, rdenoting the left or right bath. The jump memoryk t records the last detected transition...

  6. [5]

    FCS of the three-level maser with feedback From now on, we consider a resonant external drive be- tween the states|0⟩and|1⟩, whereω d =ω l −ω r and thus ∆ = 0. Hence,H off = 0, and the extended Hamiltonian be- comes H=λ |0⟩ ⟨1|+|1⟩ ⟨0| ⊗ |Er⟩ ⟨Er|.(53) The feedback steady-state is obtained by solvingLρ ss sm = 0, which corresponds to an eigenvector equati...

  7. [6]

    G. T. Landi, M. J. Kewming, M. T. Mitchison, and P. P. Potts, PRX Quantum5, 020201 (2024)

    2024

  8. [7]

    H.-S. Goan, G. J. Milburn, H. M. Wiseman, and H. Bi Sun, Phys. Rev. B63, 125326 (2001)

    2001

Show all 53 references
  1. [8]

    Gammelmark and K

    S. Gammelmark and K. Mølmer, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 170401 (2014)

    2014

  2. [9]

    L. F. Santos and G. T. Landi, Phys. Rev. A111, 042415 (2025)

    2025

  3. [10]

    G. T. Landi, Phys. Rev. B104, 195408 (2021)

    2021

  4. [11]

    D. J. Skinner and J. Dunkel, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 198101 (2021)

    2021

  5. [12]

    Schulz, D

    F. Schulz, D. Chevallier, and M. Albert, Phys. Rev. B107, 245406 (2023)

    2023

  6. [13]

    J. C. Bergquist, R. G. Hulet, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Wineland, Phys. Rev. Lett.57, 1699 (1986)

    1986

  7. [14]

    Sauter, W

    T. Sauter, W. Neuhauser, R. Blatt, and P. E. Toschek, Phys. Rev. Lett.57, 1696 (1986)

    1986

  8. [15]

    Nagourney, J

    W. Nagourney, J. Sandberg, and H. Dehmelt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 2797 (1986)

    1986

  9. [16]

    R. J. Cook and H. J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. Lett.54, 1023 (1985)

    1985

  10. [17]

    A. J. B. Rosal, P. P. Potts, and G. T. Landi, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.01934 (2025), quant-ph

    2025 arXiv

  11. [18]

    H. M. Wiseman, Phys. Rev. A49, 2133 (1994)

    1994

  12. [19]

    A. J. B. Rosal, P. P. Potts, and G. T. Landi, arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.08085 (2025), quant-ph

    2025 arXiv

  13. [20]

    D’Urso, B

    B. D’Urso, B. Odom, and G. Gabrielse, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 043001 (2003)

    2003

  14. [21]

    D. A. Steck, K. Jacobs, H. Mabuchi, S. Habib, and T. Bhat- tacharya, Phys. Rev. A74, 012322 (2006)

    2006

  15. [22]

    Bushev, D

    P. Bushev, D. Rotter, A. Wilson, F. m. c. Dubin, C. Becher, J. Eschner, R. Blatt, V . Steixner, P. Rabl, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 043003 (2006)

    2006

  16. [23]

    Jacobs, H

    K. Jacobs, H. I. Nurdin, F. W. Strauch, and M. James, Phys. Rev. A91, 043812 (2015)

    2015

  17. [24]

    Frimmer, J

    M. Frimmer, J. Gieseler, and L. Novotny, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 163601 (2016)

    2016

  18. [25]

    J. Guo, R. Norte, and S. Gr ¨oblacher, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 223602 (2019)

    2019

  19. [26]

    Buffoni, A

    L. Buffoni, A. Solfanelli, P. Verrucchi, A. Cuccoli, and M. Campisi, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 070603 (2019)

    2019

  20. [27]

    S. K. Manikandan and S. Qvarfort, Phys. Rev. A107, 023516 (2023)

    2023

  21. [28]

    De Sousa, P

    G. De Sousa, P. Bakhshinezhad, B. Annby-Andersson, P. Samuelsson, P. P. Potts, and C. Jarzynski, Phys. Rev. E111, 014152 (2025)

    2025

  22. [29]

    Sarovar, C

    M. Sarovar, C. Ahn, K. Jacobs, and G. J. Milburn, Phys. Rev. A69, 052324 (2004)

    2004

  23. [30]

    Marcos, A

    D. Marcos, A. Smith, A. Bednorz, and N. Yunger Halpern, Phys. Rev. X10, 041013 (2020)

    2020

  24. [31]

    Vijay, C

    R. Vijay, C. Macklin, D. H. Slichter, S. J. Weber, K. W. Murch, R. Naik, A. N. Korotkov, and I. Siddiqi, Nature490, 77 (2012)

    2012

  25. [32]

    Rist `e, C

    D. Rist `e, C. C. Bultink, K. W. Lehnert, and L. DiCarlo, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 240502 (2012)

    2012

  26. [33]

    M. D. Vidrighin, O. Dahlsten, M. Barbieri, M. S. Kim, V . Ve- dral, and I. A. Walmsley, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 050401 (2016)

    2016

  27. [34]

    Naghiloo, J

    M. Naghiloo, J. J. Alonso, A. Romito, E. Lutz, and K. W. Murch, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 030604 (2018)

    2018

  28. [35]

    Ribezzi-Crivellari and F

    M. Ribezzi-Crivellari and F. Ritort, Nature Physics15, 660 (2019)

    2019

  29. [36]

    Sagawa and M

    T. Sagawa and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 090602 (2010)

    2010

  30. [37]

    Sagawa and M

    T. Sagawa and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 180602 (2012)

    2012

  31. [38]

    K. Funo, Y . Watanabe, and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. E88, 052121 (2013)

    2013

  32. [39]

    Z. K. Minev, S. O. Mundhada, S. Shankar, P. Reinhold, R. Guti ´errez-J´auregui, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. Mirrahimi, H. J. Carmichael, and M. H. Devoret, Nature570, 200 (2019), arXiv:1902.10355 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Hofmann, V

    A. Hofmann, V . F. Maisi, C. Gold, T. Kr¨ahenmann, C. R¨ossler, J. Basset, P. M¨arki, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, K. Ensslin, and 13 T. Ihn, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 206803 (2016)

    2016

  34. [41]

    F. Ye, A. Ellaboudy, and J. M. Nichol, Phys. Rev. Appl.23, 044063 (2025)

    2025

  35. [42]

    M. J. Kewming, A. Kiely, S. Campbell, and G. T. Landi, Phys. Rev. A109, L050202 (2024)

    2024

  36. [43]

    Fiusa, P

    G. Fiusa, P. E. Harunari, A. S. Hegde, and G. T. Landi, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.06208 (2025), cond-mat.stat-mech

    2025

  37. [45]

    Prech, P

    K. Prech, P. Johansson, E. Nyholm, G. T. Landi, C. Verdozzi, P. Samuelsson, and P. P. Potts, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 023155 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    Nishiyama and Y

    T. Nishiyama and Y . Hasegawa, Phys. Rev. E109, 044114 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    Sayrin, I

    C. Sayrin, I. Dotsenko, X. Zhou, B. Peaudecerf, T. Rybarczyk, S. Gleyzes, P. Rouchon, M. Mirrahimi, H. Amini, M. Brune, J.-M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, Nature477, 73–77 (2011)

    2011

  40. [48]

    H. E. D. Scovil and E. O. Schulz-DuBois, Phys. Rev. Lett.2, 262 (1959)

    1959

  41. [49]

    A. A. S. Kalaee, A. Wacker, and P. P. Potts, Phys. Rev. E104, L012103 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    Time-resolved stochastic dynamics of quantum thermal machines,

    A. S. Hegde, P. P. Potts, and G. T. Landi, “Time-resolved stochastic dynamics of quantum thermal machines,” (2024), arXiv:2408.00694 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    M. A. Aamir, P. Jamet Suria, J. A. Mar ´ın Guzm´an, C. Castillo- Moreno, J. M. Epstein, N. Yunger Halpern, and S. Gasparinetti, Nature Physics21, 318 (2025). Appendix A: Proof of the jump-based feedback master equation(9) Let us consider a sequential measurement scheme in whic...

    2025

  44. [52]

    Feedback steady-state The feedback steady-state can be obtained by solving the coupled equations for∂ tϱt(k), or, equivalently, by determin- ing the eigenvector of the generator satisfyingLρ sm(t) = 0, whereLis defined in Result (1). For the feedback protocol im- plemented in ...

  45. [53]

    (48), thereby fixing the general weightsν k in Eq

    Power The counting observable considered in the application of the three-level maser consists of the stochastic work defined in Eq. (48), thereby fixing the general weightsν k in Eq. (1). Hence, the average current defined in Eq. (35) corresponds to the power delivered by the ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.